I think that that is what Aspinall ignores and ignites many members here. Zoos do not exist because they can be up to a certain extent centers of conservation. Zoos exist because people want to see animals, that desire will not go away anytime soon and is the main reason why zoos are more popular than ever before.
In an age where everything that exists needs to have a reason to exist, preferably an economic one, but otherwise morally, zoos have reached out claiming they are centers of excellence for conservation, education and research. Aspinall is in many way right that most zoos fail that test. Many of his arguments are flawed and misrepresent evidence (e.g. increase in Greater Bamboo lemur numbers has a lot to do with the discovery of new populations, not recovery of existing ones), but there is some truth to some statements. Apart from the fact that he ignores many zoos make significant contributions to in situ conservation, he is right that a large number of zoos only do conservation in little more than name.
What Aspinall deliberately overlooks, is that zoos exist because people want to see animals and experience them from close-up. That is something television shows and virtual reality cannot replace. Seeing animals up close, including ones previously unknown to visitors, is the main reason people go to a zoo. In an increasingly industrialized world, zoos are one of the few opportunities for people to see wildlife at all and I think zoos should be more honest in this regard as to why it is important they exist. From an animal welfare point there is a lot that we know, but still a lot of unknowns. Many husbandry successes show that a large number of animals can be kept normally in captivity.
